I find it infinitely amusing to watch the political right bellow about "small government" when to a person they favor a large (expensive) military, and support government's right to snoop into private e-mail traffic, phone calls etc.

There's no question that both major US parties favor "big government." The only issue is where they'd prefer that "bigness" to occur.

When will journalists start reporting facts rather than sensationalized non-sense? As if the president has complete control over the country. The congress is the real power in this country. They create the laws, block laws, add unneeded spending in order to "make deals". If you were really a journalist you would be reporting on how the congress has blocked potential job creation for the last two years. But, no, that doesnt sell. So you, are, what is called, a SELL OUT. Do some REAL JOURNALISM.

"you've got me into." is the phrase that should be added to your title. Who is the "you've"? The shallowness of the debate is new. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan (who raised taxes and grew an enormous debt)..all these Republicans had strong ideas about the role of government not only in the world but also in the US. So too did the Democratic Presidents. The current problem has arisen because there is confusion out there about what kind of world we are going to have in the 21st Century. Given the globalized economy, with its globalized labor market, what is the role of government, of nation-states? European conservative governments and the Republicans in the US think that "austerity" is the answer. In other words, lets cut back on general consumerism, and focus our production on high quality products. In Europe everyone knows that the financial sector has to be reigned in, but in the US, not even the Democrats are convinced of this. The current position is to have government help the markets to work. However this Geitner et al strategy has failed. So much for Friedman's "freedom of property" capitalism. Finally, not only is the private sector debt unsustainable as a result of the success of consumer capitalism, but so too is the government debt that created conditions for capitalist investment, and managed an expensive safety net for the mass of people at the bottom of the ladder. So we are out of ideas as to how the markets should function, and how the government should function. This is the reason why the debate is full of soundbites and dark imagery. As for the Universities and the think tanks, I have not seen an economist who has any serious theory concerning the direction capitalism should take at the present time in order to continue it's processes of creative destruction, which are the source of wealth.

Really? How about reducing the role of government and letting the market figure it out? From Adam Smith to Milton Friedman to today capitalism has been about letting the "invisible hand" of the market efficiently allocate our resources. If you are looking to an economist (or President) for solutions you are looking to the wrong place.

We have seen how the free market deals with the economy both in the early twentieth century and in the late twentieth century. in both moments of our history, the private sector has failed us. Unfortunately in the late twentieth century the public sector has failed us also. Clinton did well, but look at the mess Bush made, and then the mess the Republican House has been making for the last two years. The public sector is the answer, but what role should it play. That is the question.

We haven't had a "free market" for decades but to the extent that we have had a form f modified capitalism, it is capitalism that has given us the universal well-being that virtually all in the U.S. enjoy even in these difficult economic times. It is not capitalism that has failed us but government. Government created Fannie Mae, too big to fail, and the housing crisis. Government absorbs a larger portion of our economy than at any time other than during WWII. Government has created an entitlement state with a demographic time bomb that we expect to receive in Medicaire and SS but we haven't paid for and our children aren't prepared to pay for. If any reader really doubts this, consider the following: how is it that the "West" is overflowing in wealth and abundance yet our governments are bankrupt and can't afford our future obligations while the Lesser Developed Countries (eg China) have far lower standards of living yet they run economic growth and huge surpluses that own US Treasuries???

This is wrong. Capitalism NOT the same as market exchange. Market exchange has taken place for thousands of years while Capitalism is about 500 years old. Capitalism is a term used to describe economies in which capital plays the leading role amongst the three factors of production. Capital is allocated in a way to maximize return to capital.

Socialism is a term used for economies in which Labor plays the leading role. Capital is allocated in a way as to maximize the return to workers.

Thus, the Soviet Union was NOT a socialist economy, but rather a particular kind of Capitalism, which we can call state capitalism. If you have ever worked in a major corporation you will note that two kinds of exchange occur. Intra-company exchanges are made at cost, while external exchanges are usually profit-generating and make use of external markets.

Imagine a corporation becoming so large that it brought the entire economy "in house". In this case all the exchanges between the various business units would be internal transfers and not market mediated. External exchanges would also not be market mediated because the company has a monopoly on everything. This is essentially what the Soviet Union was and its principal problem was the difficulty of coordinating the work process of all the disparate business unit so as to achieve corporate (State) objectives of domestic peace (necessary to retain power) and maximum profit (which was largely translated into military and other forms of State power)

The coordination problem became increasingly complicated as the economy grew more complex. Increased complexity reflected technical advancement which the Soviet Union had to pursue in order to keep up militarily with the West. In the end it proved too much and the Soviet corporation failed.

The issue with the Soviet Union was not that it was an overgrown corporation that subsumed the entire economy. The issues were many but at the most basic: 1) was that it was a top down driven economy where production decisions were driven by the state and not driven by price signals in the market, and 2) market participants were not properly incentivized.

I am a traditional Chinese. To America politics, I know little about it. What my opinion is that. In the certain dilemma, American should have a mild choice. Unchanged mass is better than a changed chaos.

This article is right on, and I'm glad it puts republicans on the spot for their contradictory views on spending when they wanna spend ridiculous amounts on defense. Romney asking for less private sector regulations only shows he comes from the private sector,the same one that without regulation brought us to the brink of a depression not too long ago.

"And over that, America’s schizophrenia: it taxes itself like a small-government country, but spends like a big-government one."

Bear in mind that the US is in a unique situation where its Treasury bonds are the gold standard of the world and the first place to invest [after real gold] from offshore governments et al. at an almost zero interest rate. This tempts weak politicians not to raise taxes, which will always be wasted on incompetent USG programs. I worked for the US government for over a decade and know the waste & incompetence firsthand.

Ah yes, but American goverment is run by Americans, who run American businesses. Seen plenty incompetence there too. And because of the merry go round between lobbying, business and government office, there is little to distinguish the two in the round.

"AMID all the name-calling in America’s presidential campaign, a serious subject has begun to emerge: what role should governments play?.."

This "Serious Subject", has never left our MINDS!
The ONLY Role ALL Governments should Play, is to Serve the 99% of US!!

"... But there is a real left-right division, personified by the two candidates....."

This "Fictitious Fight", is taking place so Far to the Right of Center, that the term Left/Liberal NO Longer has ANY Meaning!!!

".... Next week marks the centenary of the birth of Milton Friedman......."

Believe it or NOT, there are MORE than a FEW Economists associated with Mr. Friedman and the University of Chicago, whose GOOD Ideas have been Lost in the Fog!!!!
A couple of days ago, I listened to a brief interview with a University of Maryland Professor of Political-Economy (Gar Alperovitz) -whom I had never heard of before, on my Favorite Radio station (Yes I still listen to FREE-Radio). Intrigued, I went on to read his Excellent Op-Ed piece in the NY Times, followed quickly by further Investigation and Reading Up of this Interesting subject!!!!

"....Simons did not shrink from the obvious conclusion: “Every industry should be either effectively competitive or socialized.” If other remedies were unworkable, “The state should face the necessity of actually taking over, owning, and managing directly” all “industries in which it is impossible to maintain effectively competitive conditions.”.........."

When it comes to Corporations and the Role Governments should Play, nothing tops what Henry Calvert Simons Said & Stated back in the Early Thirties!!!!!
This Hero and Mentor of Friedman was RIGHT-ON. While MANY of his Disciples (Friedman, Greenspan,.......) were DEAD-WRONG!!!!!!

"....America needs a man who can spell out what he thinks a modern government should do—and then how to pay for it......"

The common view from across the pond is that all of America is massively to the right, always has been, no reason to see it change.
There is nothing anywhere in the US political world that most of the rest of the world would call 'left'.

I Assure you, that this was NEVER the Case!
When these People/Sheeple WAKE-UP, their SWING to LEFT will be Off the Charts!!
Even those FOOLS, who Think that they're Entrenched in the RIGHT, Will come around!!!

P.S. The MORE they Swing to the Right, the CLOSER they get to the LEFT...............

I guess you have never been to California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois or read any major newspaper in the big cities of the U.S. Both coasts and a good portion of the Midwest (most of US population) are European in their political leanings.

Here is a new flash though - at the national level, there is very little difference between Dems and Republicans; with the exception of Unions, both are taking money from the same parties.

You would have trouble understanding the realities of US politics - Europeans do not have hundreds of millions of Euro involved in each election. Lucky you.

"Mr Obama needs to decide whether he is on the side of taxpayers or public-sector workers (who, if they work for the federal government, earn more than their private-sector equivalents do in wages and benefits)."

Because the federal government is hiring educated folks to run large, muilti-billion dollar domestic and foreign programs.

Which is to say that thanks to unions, average Government wages have not stagnated as much as they have in the private economy - thus providing the Cons the opportunity to play the envy card. Clever swine, those plutocrats....

It would of been so much easier if they recognized that fighting a war requires war taxes. Bush, if not for his neo-con ideology could of easily invoked patriotism after 9/11 to rally the public to accept a greater sacrifice.

But then again, without someone to show us the error of their mistakes, we would be doomed doing it some point in the future anyway. On the bright side of course, a better economy would breed less wingnuts, and less partisanship.

I just can't see any of the prescribed actions mentioned in the article ever taking place. Unfortunately, President Obama thinks the private sector, "is doing just fine,", while Mr. Romney would never end the war on drugs or instate prison reform. Congress needs to find a way to compromise (we've all heard that one before) because otherwise the US could be in for another double dip recession.

What this article is asking for is a debate on the real issues during the election instead of the usual hobby horse.

However there are sound reasons why the candidates try to steer clear of genuine debate.

1) To make a coherent argument, you need more than the 12 minutes you get on TV between ad breaks - usually a lot less. If you can get a message out at all, it will just be a sound-bite, a pithy statement which is content free.
2) Any candidate who brings up the real issues risks offering a hostage to fortune. It is certain Obama/Romney will have to take unpopular decisions after the election. If you bring up this now, you risk ridicule on the airwaves and reducing freedom of action when/if you get into power.
3) Modern election campaigns are incredibly sensitive to gaffes. If you blunder out the wrong sequence of words under pressure, there is no rolling back, your words will be amplified and repeated over and over. Real people don't talk like this, they stumble over words all the time. Meaning is conveyed in proper conversation, where mistakes are allowed and corrected. This means candidates can't talk like real people and tend to stay away from anything important, for fear of making a gaffe.

We know that what the GOP is doing is a sure recipe for disaster, or ongoing disaster as the case would be. Here's a cheerful illustration of what the GOP is trying to do to Obama: http://youtu.be/R-5rlcAhkA4

"Worryingly in hock to the public-sector unions, Mr Obama seems to think the public sector is inherently more moral than the private one."

Don't you find this to be common among liberals -- an assumption of moral superiority? I have found it so. I have many acquaintances who are school teachers (I am one myself), librarians, social workers, government employees . . . that sort of thing. Every single one is politically liberal and most, if asked what they do for a living, respond they are in the "helping professions."

There is a sort of psychic income, I suppose, derived from being on the public payroll, on a university faculty, tenured in a government school, or laboring for a non-profit. This consists of an implicit faith that this sort of work is inherently more worthwhile than labor in the "private sector" (a term these people use to refer to what the rest of humanity simply calls "the world."

This moral superiority is, of course, utterly unearned. Someone who has achieved tenure in the public schools is not a better person than the person who waits tables for a living. Yet, how many times do we have to read "I touch the future -- I teach!" or some other self-congratulatory bromide? It isn't enough for these people, is it, that they are paid for doing their job? They must compensate themselves a second time by an assumed mantle of moral superiority that lies in what they do rather than who they are -- occupation, that is, rather than character.

I don't find this sort of hubris as common among conservatives. I have yet to meet a banker who stated "I touch the future -- I give thirty year mortgages!" He does he what he does in order to be compensated and spares us a theology of self-sacrifice and superior worth.

It is an odd sort of sanctimoniousness. Consoling a person as a social worker because that person doesn't have a job is somehow superior to giving the person a job (what businessmen do) and letting him support himself. Working for a non-profit that pays no taxes to support those in need or uphold municipal services is somehow more noble than scounging for every dollar and, in the process, enabling everyone else to live better, fuller lives because of decent municipal services and a well-funded educational establishment.

I have also noticed, and perhaps the readers has as well, that these people in "the helping professions' invariably live in as big a house as they can afford.

Mr. Obama is, I fear, of this liberal bent of mind and this explains much of what he does and says.

Liberals tend to buffoonery. What else but that are we to call an assumption of moral superiority based on the facts that one has tenure, civil service protection or a lavish pension?

I find this all rather odd, occasionally amusing -- and a bit contemptible.

I don't always agree with your sentiments A.Andros, but I've got to say that you have a deft way of presenting them. Kudos on coining the term 'psychic income', I plan on using it in conversation and pretending I came up with it.

However, its possible that the job smugness you describe is not limited to the public sector or the left wing. My wife works in the public health sector while I work in the private building sector. She earns a fair bit more than me, largely on account of being a better worker. Nonetheless, I can't shake the unjustified feeling that my market generated income is somehow more 'valuable', or that I work in the 'real world'. I think there are many people in private enterprise who consider public jobs parasitic to their own (morally superior) hard work. "Those who cant - teach", might be a good summation of this mindset. I'd consider that a form of 'psychic income', one which I've been known to indulge in.

In actuality, I find as much "moral superiority" on the left as I find on the right. While I like the term "psychic income" there are plenty of people on the right who find moral superiority in their views. It is not a right vs. left issue, it is more a simplification of the issues to right vs. left when the issues are much more complicated and require a more sophisticated approach.

In actuality, I find as much "moral superiority" on the left as I find on the right. While I like the term "psychic income" there are plenty of people on the right who find moral superiority in their views. It is not a right vs. left issue, it is more a simplification of the issues to right vs. left when the issues are much more complicated and require a more sophisticated approach.

"I don't find this sort of hubris as common among conservatives. I have yet to meet a banker who stated "I touch the future -- I give thirty year mortgages!" He does he what he does in order to be compensated and spares us a theology of self-sacrifice and superior worth."

Interesting. My experience is precisely the opposite: I don't notice that sentiment at all among the liberals I know, but many of my conservative friends are quick to heap proves unto themselves for things they really didn't earn.

I also find your premise of a unified liberal state of mind laughable.

But, please re-read my comment -- it was not an observation of moral superiority in "their views," and we will all, of course, argue for the superiority of those we hold, but of superiority assumed by virtue of how they make their living. Thus, there is a modicum of moral high ground that simply comes from being in a "helping profession" such as social work regardless of the character of the social worker. If on the other hand one does what I did -- make as much money as possible in the shortest practical time -- then liberals assign me to one of the lesser breed of professions without the law. I find this common among liberals and so much so that they seem dazed when you dissent from their self-comforting assumptions. They honestly believe that someone who is in business follows a lesser light than someone who, for instance, works in the local non-profit. I find that absurd.

"He needs to get serious about cutting back regulation, rather than increasing it; and he needs to spend more time listening to successful business leaders rather than telling them all is fine."
The proposition that regulation is harmful to businesses is the very short-sightedness that got us into a crisis. Well implemented regulation ensures businesses operate with a long term profit model rather than the short term harvest and burn profit model, it ensures a business is exposed to the risks their profit making strategies involve. If you're going to advocate getting rid of regulation you should state precisely which regulation and what would be the benefits of removing it. Regulations are historically put in place because their benefits outweigh their costs to society. E.g. putting cheap carcinogenic products in food might benefit a company's short term profit but in the long term will have disastrous costs to the population. Same goes with highly leveraged Russian roulette financial products...

Several posters here have said that this is a far-right vs. center left debate.

Now in my understanding of these terms left-wing means those who are for more government control and right-wing are those who are for less. Statists versus libertarians. This pertains to the DIRECTION in which each side pushes, but does not mean that all pushing is good in one of the two directions, irrespective of where we stand today on that spectrum.

In the light of that, we know for a fact that America has seen a vast expansion in government's role, power and control over the last 10 years. Government today controls over 40% of national GDP. How can that be right-wing is any sense? It matters not what labels Republicans or Democrats like to carry on their lapels, they are BOTH big spenders. They are BOTH left-wing.

Only from a full-fledged socialist perspective (in the strictest text book sense, not the name calling rubbish that goes around), can a government that spends over 40% of the piggy bank and hasn't balanced its books for well over 2/3 of the time be said to be "center right".

If one were to believe his most dramatic critics, George W was apparently a fascist! (just goes to show how short memories are on both sides of the political aisle)

Jokes aside, Bush was most definitely a statist i.e. big government. He was for small government in some respects but the aspects where he was for more government far outweighed the former. Don't judge a political leader based on his words, look at his policies and actions. Government spending and control increased sharply under Bush. If right-wing is meant to be old fashioned - "live within your means" - "don't interfere with other nations unless they mess with you" - conservative, W was anything but that.

Bush definitely pursued domestic policies that moved America closer to what socialism wants to achieve: the control of the means of production of wealth by the government. He "achieved" that by substantially increasing the regulatory powers and number of regulations of government, and by increasing the size of government in absolute and relative terms.

So in that definition, GWB left a more socialist country than Clinton, and Obama left (so far) a much more socialist country than Bush.

It is why I look back at those "gold old Clinton days". How can Tea Party supporters talk negative about that guy?!

Can someone please explain it to me why did my comment asking whether or not incumbent american president produced his birth certificate yet got deleted?It become racist and a no-no to talk about birth certificates?

And then there are the people whose critical thinking skills only allow them to conceive of a political spectrum defined in the narrow, spoon-fed parameters and talking points of the mass media; this limits their discussion to blind, pre-packaged accusations based off of empty phrases like "liberals think X" and "Conservatives want Y".